Can a bailiff clamp for an unpaid PCN ?

[ploddertom]

I've lost the plot somewhere, can someone point me to the Rule/Regulation that allows a Bailiff to clamp for an unpaid PCN.

[BASFORDLAD2]

Is it a council ticket

[ploddertom]

Yes

[MARTIN3030]

As many followers will know,Councils do contract the likes of Waller for clamping.

In fact JBW were featured on TV a few times carrying out said deeds in the infamous bailiff series.

[Fair-Parking]

PT - There isn't one.

[Consumer dude]

PT - There isn't one.

 

What. There isn't a council ticket ?

[lamma]

From memory CPR 75.5 and 75.6. Which conjure up distress 'as if' under the Distress for Rent rules. Hence a car as a chattel comes into play.

[brassnecked]

As per FP, I don't think there is anything specific that permits clamping per-se for a council PCN, likely they make it up as they go along to back their bailiff up when they are after the money. Perhaps tomtubby will know.

[Fair-Parking]

Good and chattels are allowed to be seized and that is written on a warrant, but the question was whether there is a rule somewhere that allows a bailiff to clamp for an unpaid PCN. There is no such rule, not even for LB Barking & Dagenham, who this week announced in an email that as soon as a warrant is issued a car becomes their property.

 

When did Count Arthur move to Essex?

[lamma]

Can we see this wonderous email ? The act of Distress does not give Title - as I am sure you know, apparently B&D are clueless..

[Fair-Parking]

It is actually part of a long letter which came as an attachment from a client, but I have copied and pasted the part that is relevent.

'I have attached a copy of this document for your perusal (should you have any concerns over the legitimacy of the Warrant, you can contact the Northampton County Court who will clarify this). The enforcement process allows for a vehicle to be seized in the absence of the registered keeper. The vehicle was bound to the Authority once the warrant had been issued on 24 April 2012; the Council were not privy to, nor can it be held responsible for the fact that the vehicle was sold to you with a Warrant impending. The bailiff therefore had every right to levy on the vehicle once initial attempts to recover the amount owed had failed'.

Not only do these fools think that Northampton County Court isses warrants, but clearly this means LB Barking & Dagenham did not which CPR 75 (7) (3) demands it does. Thus although somebody has printed one (last month and not before 1st May as per the time limit set by CPR 75 (7) (3)) no legitimate warrant was printed by LB Barking & Dagenham (better nor use the word 'fake' as it upsets the moderators). Just an everyday occurance in parking enforcement.

They have also managed to confuse the fact that it is people who are responsible to pay tickets and not cars.

[lamma]

No time at the moment but I will endeavour to write on this later. for the moment I merely say that the council is wrong and that I believe they are liable under the Distress for Rent rules. Plus how could the ant Title have passed (putting to one side for now the five day period) when the Warrant did had not yet exist. By their own text they say it was impending.

[ploddertom]

Thank you all for your replies, they make interesting reading.

 

Like FP I don't think there is anything that allows a Bailiff to clamp for an unpaid PCN. My understanding is that a clamp may be "fitted" for a vehicle that is causing an obstruction probably prior to its removal, for not having a valid RFL or if it is subject to a Clamping Order for non-payment of a Magistrates Court fine. As far I can see the bailiff is again operating under the Distress for Rent Rules - the same as for Council Tax - yet we don't see the country littered with clamped vehicles for failure to pay CT - they wouldn't have enough clamps anyway.

 

My interpretation of what happens is that the Bailiff is acting unlawfully, he applies the clamp before he posts the levy through the door and does not allow a reasonable amount of time for the debtor to be able to pay

[MARTIN3030]

Lets move this to the Motoring forums there are quite a few clued up on these issues active there.

[Mackintyre247]

Clamping is allowed if there is a valid levy over the car because its the property of the bailiff but its challengeable on excessive levy or a levy fee is charged to increase the debt making the purpose of the levy to recover the fee for the levy itself.

[ploddertom]

Clamping is allowed if there is a valid levy over the car because its the property of the bailiff but its challengeable on excessive levy or a levy fee is charged to increase the debt making the purpose of the levy to recover the fee for the levy itself.

 

That cannot work as many times a bailiff will seize a motor vehicle for Council Tax or NNDR.

[Mackintyre247]

Councils can levy a car for council tax etc provided there is a valid levy over it. After the levy the council can clamp or remove it. If the levy turns out to be not valid then the council is liable for unlawful deprivation.

 

Your question was about clamping for a PCN. There is no specific regulation that provides for clamping.

 

A levy is not valid if it was made in the debtors absence (Ambrose/Notts council 2004) or clamped in the debtors absence (Khazanchi/Faircharm 1998). JBW policy clamping vehicles on the street is not lawful because there is no pre-existing valid levy but it hasnt been challenged in the EWHC yet. Thats only a matter of time and it could be mass-payback for many motorists.

[ploddertom]

Councils can levy a car for council tax etc provided there is a valid levy over it. After the levy the council can clamp or remove it. If the levy turns out to be not valid then the council is liable for unlawful deprivation. I think you are a tad confused here as the Council do not do the levying or clamping. The Bailiff may indeed remove a car but cannot clamp it.

Your question was about clamping for a PCN. There is no specific regulation that provides for clamping. Precisely

 

A levy is not valid if it was made in the debtors absence (Ambrose/Notts council 2004) or clamped in the debtors absence (Khazanchi/Faircharm 1998). No one needs to be present for a levy to be taken or for it to be valid. JBW policy clamping vehicles on the street is not lawful because there is no pre-existing valid levy but it hasnt been challenged in the EWHC yet. Thats only a matter of time and it could be mass-payback for many motorists.

 

PT

[Mackintyre247]

a tad confused? Its looks straightforward: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/1880/contents/made

 

No one needs to be present for a levy to be taken or for it to be valid? Judge Morritt didnt agree: http://court-appeal.vlex.co.uk/vid/ur-judge-cox-52584219

[lamma]

The car does not become the property of the bailiff when distressed. Even less so for CPE matters as the bailiff operates merely as a private bailiff. The 'as if' falls away.

[Mackintyre247]

whats CPE matters?

[ploddertom]

a tad confused? Its looks straightforward: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/1880/contents/made

 

Only a Certificated Bailiff may levy for distress, the only function the Council have is to issue the Liability Order to their appointed enforcement company/agent.

 

No one needs to be present for a levy to be taken or for it to be valid? Judge Morritt didnt agree: http://court-appeal.vlex.co.uk/vid/ur-judge-cox-52584219 This appeal was more about the Bailiff forcing entry and the fact he has to be there by permission. Otherwise 75% of levies would be invalid.

 

PT

[lamma]

whats CPE matters?

 

Civil Parking Enforcement. i.e. council PCNs as per the thread title.

[No Surrender]

I've lost the plot somewhere, can someone point me to the Rule/Regulation that allows a Bailiff to clamp for an unpaid PCN.

 

I had a Bailiff clamp my car, which I promptly removed with an angle grinder and gave the clamp to my mate for scrap. Since then I have been driving my car close up close to a wall in a private parking area on private land, removing the rear plate and removing my tax disc so they can't read the registration. Basically what they can't ID they can't take..!

[sailor sam]

If the bailiff was properly licensed and acting on a warrant issued by The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), you may well of committed an offence by removing it. If it was clamped on behalf of the DVLA, you deffo will have committed an offence.

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.